Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Laumer v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2015Laumer v. United States, 409 A.2d 190, 199 (D.C. 1979) (en banc). 2015Laumer v. United States, 409 A.2d 190, 199 (D.C. 1979) (en banc). | 4 | 4 |
Maziarz v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026See Maziarz v. United States, 312 A.3d 1234 , 1245-46 (D.C. 2024) (“This court has adopted the principle that appellate courts may direct the entry of a judgment for a lesser-included offense when a conviction for a greater offense is reversed on grounds that only affect the greater offense.”) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Rutledge v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2024Willis v. United States, 692 A.2d 1380 , 1383 (D.C. 1997) (citing Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 307 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Georgegreen1 sentence2022See Beard v. Edmondson & Gallagher, 790 A.2d 541 , 546 n.8 (D.C. 2002); Anderson v. George, 717 A.2d 876, 877-78 (D.C. 1998); R.D.H. | 1 | 1 |
Beard v. Edmondson and Gallaghergreen1 sentence2022See Beard v. Edmondson & Gallagher, 790 A.2d 541 , 546 n.8 (D.C. 2002); Anderson v. George, 717 A.2d 876, 877-78 (D.C. 1998); R.D.H. | 1 | 1 |
Hughes v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen2 sentences1993See Hughes v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 498 A.2d 567 , 571 n. 8 (D.C.1985). 1993See Hughes v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 498 A.2d 567 , 571 n. 8 (D.C.1985). | 1 | 1 |
Stein v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1991Stein v. United States, 532 A.2d 641, 643 (D.C.1987), and cases cited. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Willis v. United States
green
1 sentence2024Willis v. United States, 692 A.2d 1380 , 1383 (D.C. 1997) (citing Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 307 (1996)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Frederick Road Ltd. Partnership v. Sturm
green
1 sentence2022The rule has been applied to toll a statute of limitations in cases involving “a relationship which is built on trust and confidence” and serves to “give[] the confiding party the right to relax his or her guard and rely on the good faith of the other party so long as the relationship continues to exist.” Id. at 975 . 6 Based on similar principles, this court has adopted a rule to toll the running of a statute of limitations in the limited context of legal and medical malpractice claims, which we have dubbed the “continuous representation” or “continuous treatment” rule. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences2002“This balancing of probative value and prejudice is committed to the discretion of the trial judge, and this court will review it only for abuse of that discretion.” Id. (citation omitted). 2002“In weighing the probative value of evidence versus potential prejudice to the defendant, this court has adopted the standard ... in the other crimes context: ‘evidence [otherwise relevant] may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice it poses.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson, supra) [alterations in original]. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Busey v. United States
green
1 sentence2002“In weighing the probative value of evidence versus potential prejudice to the defendant, this court has adopted the standard ... in the other crimes context: ‘evidence [otherwise relevant] may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice it poses.’ ” Id. (quoting Johnson, supra) [alterations in original]. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences1991To the extent that this court has viewed Ohio v. Roberts as leaving open the possibility that upon “a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , evidence would be admissible without regard to a showing of unavailability, the court has adopted an analysis yet to appear in Supreme Court decisions. 1991To the extent that this court has viewed Ohio v. Roberts as leaving open the possibility that upon “a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness,” 448 U.S. at 66 , 100 S.Ct. at 2539 , evidence would be admissible without regard to a showing of unavailability, the court has adopted an analysis yet to appear in Supreme Court decisions. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.